Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Muddled or not, the Rule as Written answer is still the same:
Without something informing us otherwise, the Army List Entries listed on the Formation Datasheet still refer to Units.

JinxDragon wrote:
Without something informing us otherwise, the Army List Entries listed on the Formation Datasheet still refer to Units.

Except when they don't...

Why would a situation where the Formation Datasheet was worded incorrectly be enough to over-turn a printed Rule?
All it shows is that the Author are capable of making a mistake within one of their Datasheets and need to fix it....

The Rules have informed us how we go about reading the Formation Datasheets so, lacking a more specific Rule informing us that there is an alternative method to read the Formation Datasheet, that is the 'context' in which the Rule has to be written.

It could link to the fact that if you can't bring chapter masters (which should be considered a relic in itself) then you can't bring Vet sergeants when you use the same reasoning

It ultimately comes down to whether or not you believe "1 Captain" refers to the unit or profile.

With GW's inconsistencies it can refer to either/or, and we don't know.

If I were to play SM I would play it as the profile, based on the fact the unique swaps are only for other Captains.

If I were to play against it, and my opponent upgraded to CM, I wouldn't say anything.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
It could link to the fact that if you can't bring chapter masters (which should be considered a relic in itself) then you can't bring Vet sergeants when you use the same reasoning

Nope, you're trying to use a totally different reasoning and claiming its the same.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
It could link to the fact that if you can't bring chapter masters (which should be considered a relic in itself) then you can't bring Vet sergeants when you use the same reasoning

Nope, you're trying to use a totally different reasoning and claiming its the same.

Not really. A Tactical Squad has 4 marines and 1 Sergeant. The Vet sergeant is an upgrade.

The Demi company says you need 3 tactical squads, but it doesnt specify upgrades.

Demi company also says it needs a captain, but doesn't specify upgrades.

A captain has the ability to be upgraded to the Chapter Master.

Therefore, we could assume one could take a Chapter Master and Veteran Sergeants

No, you clearly don't understand the reasoning. It has absolutely nothing to do with upgrades, but with what the formation's requirements are. When the formation requires '1 Captain', is it the unit (which could be upgraded) or the model (which can't be upgraded without making him a different model). There are at least two formations (one in Codex Necrons and one in Codex Grey Knights) that call for a specific model and not a unit.

 Ghaz wrote:
No, you clearly don't understand the reasoning. It has absolutely nothing to do with upgrades, but with what the formation's requirements are. When the formation requires '1 Captain', is it the unit (which could be upgraded) or the model (which can't be upgraded without making him a different model). There are at least two formations (one in Codex Necrons and one in Codex Grey Knights) that call for a specific model and not a unit.

In the Necron case, RAW you can add additional spyders to the Canoptek Harvest.

The Formation rules specify units and Army List Entries and the Formation has Restrictions 'None'.

In the Necron case, there is a popular house rule that takes away the upgrade available to the Spyder and that particular house rule likes to masquerade as RAW (when at best it is an argument making a guess as to intent - RAI).

col_impact wrote:
In the Necron case, RAW you can add additional spyders to the Canoptek Harvest.

The Formation rules specify units and Army List Entries and the Formation has Restrictions 'None'.

In the Necron case, there is a popular house rule that takes away the upgrade available to the Spyder and that particular house rule likes to masquerade as RAW (when at best it is an argument making a guess as to intent - RAI).

Already addressed.

And not QUITE the same thing, but similar misconceptions can occur.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
In the Necron case, RAW you can add additional spyders to the Canoptek Harvest.

The Formation rules specify units and Army List Entries and the Formation has Restrictions 'None'.

In the Necron case, there is a popular house rule that takes away the upgrade available to the Spyder and that particular house rule likes to masquerade as RAW (when at best it is an argument making a guess as to intent - RAI).

Already addressed.

And not QUITE the same thing, but similar misconceptions can occur.

Yup. And as I pointed out your argument in the case of the Canoptek Harvest is a house rule. RAW is clear permission.

And the Chapter Master is in the same boat. The upgrade is clearly permitted. The Formation rules specify units and Army List Entries and the upgrade is on the Army List Entry. It's house ruling to deny the Chapter Master in a Demi-company.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moreover, it should be pointed out that arguing the Canoptek Harvest refers directly to the Spyder model is ultimately not feasible.

A formation that fields models directly and does not provide rules for forming a unit out of those models winds up in a situation where you have models being fielded that cannot interact meaningfully with the game.

A spyder model would not be able to shoot, or be shot at, or run, or assault, and arguably not even able to move. It's not a unit.

So as already pointed out, the Formation rules specify units and Army List Entries and we don't need to go down some path that breaks the game.

So 1 Canoptek Spyder definitively reads "(a unit of) 1 Canoptek Spyder" and not '1 Canoptek Spyder (model).' The Formation rules provides the "a unit of" and trying to use 'model' breaks the game.

col_impact wrote:
Yup. And as I pointed out your argument in the case of the Canoptek Harvest is a house rule. RAW is clear permission.

Incorrect. RAW clear permission would be like the Triarch Stalkers in the Judicator Battalions and state "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders". The context of the Formation's Special Rule possessing the emphasis on a single Spyder provide some cloudy "RAW" supporting a full unit with additional models being added.

col_impact wrote:
And the Chapter Master is in the same boat. The upgrade is clearly permitted. The Formation rules specify units and Army List Entries and the upgrade is on the Army List Entry. It's house ruling to deny the Chapter Master in a Demi-company.

Yes, and no, about being in the same boat. There is no further context which would limit the options like the Harvest Formation contains. All there is is the unit list of the Formation, no other rules directly address the status of this upgrade.

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moreover, it should be pointed out that arguing the Canoptek Harvest refers directly to the Spyder model is ultimately not feasible.

A formation that fields models directly and does not provide rules for forming a unit out of those models winds up in a situation where you have models being fielded that cannot interact meaningfully with the game.

A spyder model would not be able to shoot, or be shot at, or run, or assault, and arguably not even able to move. It's not a unit.

So as already pointed out, the Formation rules specify units and Army List Entries and we don't need to go down some path that breaks the game.

So 1 Canoptek Spyder definitively reads "(a unit of) 1 Canoptek Spyder" and not '1 Canoptek Spyder (model).' The Formation rules provides the "a unit of" and trying to use 'model' breaks the game.

Without an FAQ, there is no "definitely" regarding it. It is ambiguous at best with all the context used in the entire datasheet.

But that is neither here nor there, because the Demi-Company carries none of the context that the Canoptek Harvest has, making it slightly off topic to pursue heavily.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Yup. And as I pointed out your argument in the case of the Canoptek Harvest is a house rule. RAW is clear permission.

Incorrect. RAW clear permission would be like the Triarch Stalkers in the Judicator Battalions and state "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders". The context of the Formation's Special Rule possessing the emphasis on a single Spyder provide some cloudy "RAW" supporting a full unit with additional models being added.

Incorrect. Clear RAW permission.







You are trying to use a contextual argument and guessing at intent to take away permission clearly granted and are resorting to house ruling to do so.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
And the Chapter Master is in the same boat. The upgrade is clearly permitted. The Formation rules specify units and Army List Entries and the upgrade is on the Army List Entry. It's house ruling to deny the Chapter Master in a Demi-company.

Yes, and no, about being in the same boat. There is no further context which would limit the options like the Harvest Formation contains. All there is is the unit list of the Formation, no other rules directly address the status of this upgrade.

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moreover, it should be pointed out that arguing the Canoptek Harvest refers directly to the Spyder model is ultimately not feasible.

A formation that fields models directly and does not provide rules for forming a unit out of those models winds up in a situation where you have models being fielded that cannot interact meaningfully with the game.

A spyder model would not be able to shoot, or be shot at, or run, or assault, and arguably not even able to move. It's not a unit.

So as already pointed out, the Formation rules specify units and Army List Entries and we don't need to go down some path that breaks the game.

So 1 Canoptek Spyder definitively reads "(a unit of) 1 Canoptek Spyder" and not '1 Canoptek Spyder (model).' The Formation rules provides the "a unit of" and trying to use 'model' breaks the game.

Without an FAQ, there is no "definitely" regarding it. It is ambiguous at best with all the context used in the entire datasheet.

But that is neither here nor there, because the Demi-Company carries none of the context that the Canoptek Harvest has, making it slightly off topic to pursue heavily.

Incorrect. It is definitely. There is clear rules support that Formations deal in units. '1 Canoptek Spyder' does not over-ride this and imagining without basis that it is 'model' breaks the formation rules and breaks the game's rules (makes the spyder unplayable). Unplayability is a serious problem. You cannot fill in gaps with 'game illegal' options.



So basically I have entirely disproven this statement by Ghaz.

No, you clearly don't understand the reasoning. It has absolutely nothing to do with upgrades, but with what the formation's requirements are. When the formation requires '1 Captain', is it the unit (which could be upgraded) or the model (which can't be upgraded without making him a different model). There are at least two formations (one in Codex Necrons and one in Codex Grey Knights) that call for a specific model and not a unit.

Oh great this thread has caused the Canoptek Harvest clusterfeth to rear its ugly head again...

col_impact, I think you'll remember how last time I showed how taking more Spyders broke one of the intrinsic rules for the Formation itself (since it refers to a single Spyder in its special rules). You'll also remember how you houseruled that into working and then claimed your houserules were RAW, so you can't really complain about other masquerading houserules are RAW from that thread (and even then thay weren't houserules, they were RAI which is the only way to play that Formation without breaking it).

Note all references to breaking weren't the 'makes it OP!' kind of breaking...

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Oh great this thread has caused the Canoptek Harvest clusterfeth to rear its ugly head again...

col_impact, I think you'll remember how last time I showed how taking more Spyders broke one of the intrinsic rules for the Formation itself (since it refers to a single Spyder in its special rules). You'll also remember how you houseruled that into working and then claimed your houserules were RAW, so you can't really complain about other masquerading houserules are RAW from that thread (and even then thay weren't houserules, they were RAI which is the only way to play that Formation without breaking it).

Note all references to breaking weren't the 'makes it OP!' kind of breaking...

Running multiple spyders doesn't break any rule. It just introduces a book-keeping task for the player and the Adaptive Subroutines rule does not explicitly lay out how to book-keep.

So my entire argument is RAW. Permission is clearly granted and no where is it taken away. I add additional spyders because I am permitted to do so and I break no rule in doing so.

You, however, are most assuredly house-ruling. You are trying to turn Adaptive Subroutines into a restriction on a permission clearly granted on the Army List Entry when it makes no restriction.

You break Adaptive Subroutines because there's no way to tell which Spyder is 'the Spyder'. How can you book-keep something that is unknown to begin with?

And how am I houseruling? I didn't even make a rule up at all. Adaptive Subroutines refers to a single Spyder and the rule breaks if there is more than one Spyder in the Formation due to the way its worded.

EDIT: But there's no point going over this again as after 2+ threads neither of us has been able to convince the other.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You break Adaptive Subroutines because there's no way to tell which Spyder is 'the Spyder'. How can you book-keep something that is unknown to begin with?

And how am I houseruling? I didn't even make a rule up at all. Adaptive Subroutines refers to a single Spyder and the rule breaks if there is more than one Spyder in the Formation due to the way its worded.

EDIT: But there's no point going over this again as after 2+ threads neither of us has been able to convince the other.

There are numerous ways to book-keep and keep track of a particular model within a unit (dice, token, etc.) in 40k. Adaptive Subroutines simply leaves the player to whatever he or she comes up with.

Again, my argument is RAW and breaks no rule.

Beside the fact that, y'know, you aren't told which Spyder of multiples is 'the Spyder', or how to/if you are able to choose which is 'the Spyder'.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Beside the fact that, y'know, you aren't told which Spyder of multiples is 'the Spyder', or how to/if you are able to choose which is 'the Spyder'.

As stated, the rule does not explicitly direct the player how to keep track of which spyder is "the spyder." However, since keeping track of which model is which with things like wound counters and tokens is an ubiquitous task in 40k, the rule really doesn't have to explicitly direct the player. It can rely on book-keeping capability as common player knowhow and practice.

You are trying to turn a rule that doesn't spell out how to book-keep into a rule that actively restricts a permission granted exceedingly clearly in the Army List Entry. I am sorry. You are making up rules and house-ruling.

There is nothing wrong with house ruling. 40k needs the occasional house rule. You just can't claim a RAW level of argument like I can. Don't call what you are doing something other than a house rule.

The difference is that the rules tell you how to allocate wounds. The rules don't tell you which Spyder of multiples is 'the Spyder'.

If you're so sure that what I'm claiming isn't RAW, show where the rule tells you which Spyder of multiples in 'the Spyder'?

The same apllies to you, don't call your houserules RAW like you did in the other threads (the other Spyders in the unit aren't actually a part of the Formation was one of the many arguments you made to counter me in one of the other treads. Clearly made up with 0 basis but you claimed it was RAW).

 Ghaz wrote:
It has nothing to do with permissions. GW already muddied the waters with the Canoptek Harvest by referring to a specific type of model and not a unit. So again, do we have any contextual evidence that GW is talking about a unit or a specific type of model? And if it is a specific type of model, you're no longer that specific type of model if you take an upgrade that makes him a different type of model.

All you're doing is saying "but I need you to prove me that it's RAI as well!" while calling it "contextual evidence". It sure sounds fancy, but it's still just about authorial intention.

The Harvest is clearly broken RAW, why do you keep bringing it up? Whichever way you choose to read the written rules for that entry - it simply doesn't work. Please stop bringing it up with perfectly fine and working rules in other locations.

That the BRB tells you consistently that you pick "units" when throwing together detachments is evidence:

The "Formation" area describing what units must go into a Demi-Battle Company is simply a FOC slot, and the BRB tells you that these will "specify a particular unit or units". Full quote:

Force Organisation Charts and Slots wrote:Occasionally, a Force Organisation slot will not specify a Battlefield Role, in which case any type of unit can be taken, or it will specify a particular unit or units, in which case only those particular units may (or must) be taken.

All other entries in that FOC slot description are clearly, unmistakenly units. There are no "Assault Squad models" or "Tactical Squad models". Why would, out of the entire Codex, this ONE line not be a unit?

That's hard evidence.

How do you plan on using the Strike Force Command? It uses the same wording ("Captain"), so it clearly has to be treated just the same. So there's literally no way to include a "Chapter Master" (outside the named ones) with your Gladius Strike Force going by that interpretation. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

I'll allow a Chapter Master if I get to bring three Spyders.

You can have your 3 Spyders (even though that breaks RAI). Good luck with getting Adaptive Subroutines to work without houserules, however.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
The difference is that the rules tell you how to allocate wounds. The rules don't tell you which Spyder of multiples is 'the Spyder'.

If you're so sure that what I'm claiming isn't RAW, show where the rule tells you which Spyder of multiples in 'the Spyder'?

The same apllies to you, don't call your houserules RAW like you did in the other threads (the other Spyders in the unit aren't actually a part of the Formation was one of the many arguments you made to counter me in one of the other treads. Clearly made up with 0 basis but you claimed it was RAW).

"The spyder" is the "1 canoptek spyder" specified in the formation composition; which as shown via the actual rules we are given can only refer to 1 canoptek spyders unit. So in the context of the rules given the spyder is the unit, the unit can be comprised of 1-3 spyders, any of those spyder models can be used to measure distance from "the spyder" because the spyder is the unit and that is how you measure range to a unit.

Just like how a tactical squad in a SM CAD is a troops unit, and therefore has objective secured: you do not need the every model within range of the objective, any model means the unit(or the tactical squad) makes the unit in range.

There is no extra book-keeping; just a failure to follow the formation rules based on the lack of an s. That lack of an s making people claim that it is the model not the unit is why I pointed out that the unit options including the s must make the options alllow additional units in a self-referencing allowance to select another entry(like the option to take a dedicated transport).

Without other rules involved a formation is only ever unit entries(which, again with DTs, may themselves allow additional entries), allowing all of their options. If you want to deny an option because you think the formation is listing the model instead of the unit, then you have to deny all options and the model costs no points(only the unit entry costs points and has the options, but you are not allowing the entry so those are not accessible)

On top of that is where we get into what I was saying about the spyders earlier: if the s is important to mean model instead of unit for the harvest, then it must be just as important in the unit entry; you cannot have it both ways. Pick 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am also going to ask this again to those that claim it to be spyder model and captain model: can Grimaldus take cenobyte servitors?

I am really starting to think that GW's sloppy rule writing is intentional and some of the best trolling ever.

I can just envision them reading these threads and laughing at us.

How can 'the Canoptek Spyder' (singular) be a unit of Spyders (plural)? 'Canoptek Spyder' is a model, 'Canoptek Spyders' is the unit. RAW it refers to a single Spyder model, not a unit of Spyder and so breaks if you have multiple Spyders.

And I've never argued from the first thread about the Harvest that the '1 Canoptek Spyder' only refers to a single model (since as you've said Formation allowances refer to Unit Entries, not models). I've only ever argued that multiple break Adaptive Subroutines (which as it is written, it does).

Really the entire Formation is broken from a RAW standpoint (since 'Canoptek Spyder' isn't even a unit entry) and so no one can ever claim they play it RAW, because you can't and have to houserule it.

It really isn't sloppy rules writing; it is sloppy reading or application of rules.

We are the problem.

Although GW does write some sloppy rules; these issues come from ignoring or missing associated rules, then focusing on some weirdness (1 spyder vs 1 unit of spyders, in this case the chapter master special characters being absent from the list of characters that count); and finally human nature taking over to where we cannot admit we were wrong.

It is sloppy when 'Canoptek Spyder' isn't even a unit entry, and Formations refer to unit entries. Even if you argue they just missed an s on the end (a few times if you take Adaptive Subruotines into account)), that's still sloppy.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
How can 'the Canoptek Spyder' (singular) be a unit of Spyders (plural)? 'Canoptek Spyder' is a model, 'Canoptek Spyders' is the unit. RAW it refers to a single Spyder model, not a unit of Spyder and so breaks if you have multiple Spyders.

And I've never argued from the first thread about the Harvest that the '1 Canoptek Spyder' only refers to a single model (since as you've said Formation allowances refer to Unit Entries, not models). I've only ever argued that multiple break Adaptive Subroutines (which as it is written, it does).

Really the entire Formation is broken from a RAW standpoint (since 'Canoptek Spyder' isn't even a unit entry) and so no one can ever claim they play it RAW, because you can't and have to houserule it.

So you agree that for an 1850 list the following is legal in a CAD:
HQ: naked lord
Troops: immortals, 5 deep
Troops: immortals, 5 deep
Fast attack: scarabs, 3 deep
Fast attack: scarabs, 3 deep
Fast attack: scarabs, 3 deep
Heavy support: 24 units of spyders, each with a particle beamer.
Total points: 1840
Total foc slots used: 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 3 Fast Attack, 1 Heavy Support.

If the lack of an s in the harvest means model, the inclusion of an s in the entry must mean unit.

Well the lack of an s certainly can't refer to the unit entry since the unit entry is 'Canoptek Spyders'.

And I'd argue no, because in the context of the unit entry's options Canoptek Spyders is the plural of the model called Canoptek Spyder. Certainly, though, from a RAW standpoint without the additional context of other unit entries it looks to be legal.

In a way it's sloppy to have the plural of a model be the same as the name for their unit.